"The whole world is watching! The whole world is watching!"
This chant became famous (or infamous, depending on which side of the story you were on) during the 1968 Democratic National Convention, in which demonstrators clashed with the police, resulting in violent upheaval. In an unprecedented moment, anti-war action was televised and for the first time, Americans (and even the world) saw what was going on around them. (Useless Trivia Moment: this chant came from a Bob Dylan song "When the Ship Comes In", remembering, of course, that the Weather Underground also took its name from a Bob Dylan Song, "Subterranean Homesick Blues").
Of course, I am not really discussing protests in this post (although, I could because daily throughout the world, even in America there is a protest of some sort), so I want you to realize that I prefaced my intended dialogue with this opening to discuss what it really means when the "whole world is watching".
The truth behind the words is often that even though the world is watching, the world is not necessarily willing or able to get involved. Let's be honest, this day and age, we know what is going on in the world around us. We have an unprecedented ability to ascertain certain knowledge, via a variety of media sources, which puts us at an advantage to our ancestors. We can, at a moment's notice, have the entire world at our fingertips.
Given this advantage, one might assume that it would make us more likely to both understand and even intervene in the world around us. If it's broke, we should be the one to fix it, right? It's our world, we need to take responsibility for it, right? (Disclaimer: by our world, I mean that it is owned by the population of the world, not by America, just for clarification).
The truth of the matter is that we do not do so. We may know what is going on, but we have a certain reluctance to want to get involved. The bystander effect* offers some insight into the phenomenon, but can we apply this to entire countries?
America, for it's part has always been an isolationist state. While it has been known to stick it's nose into conflict, generally speaking the people of the United States do not want to go around poking their noses where they don't belong (I'm paraphrasing, of course). Before WWI, Woodrow Wilson was able to run on a platform of "He Kept Us Out of War". America, as you know, then resumed it's isolationist attitude until December 7, 1941. During his address following Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt said that the Japanese empire had "awakened a sleeping giant". (Just an FYI, in case you missed it, Pearl Harbor opened the door for FDR to intervene in Europe and take on Hitler's plan for extermination). America, for it's past endeavors, has boasted in it's isolationism.
Now, of course, there have been some exceptions since the WWII era-- the Korean War, Vietnam, meddling in the Iranian- Iraqi Conflict, assisting Afghanistan when they were invaded by Russia, two wars in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the list could continue. That being said, as demonstrated by my opening statement, the popularity for these actions has not always been stellar. Americans for their part in the world, want to remain isolationist. They want to focus on problems at home and let abroad fix itself.
But, what happens when incidents arise in which someone should act? We know that the Holocaust was one such incident, but what about others. For this I want to highlight one such instance as a warning of caution for why we should be careful in letting the bystander effect dictate foreign policy. What I am speaking about of course, is the Bosnian Civil War (also called the Serbian Civil War, the Yugoslav Wars, etc.), which ran from 1991-1995. During this civil war-- a war in which the whole world was watching as it unfolded every night on television-- an estimated hundred thousand people were killed via systematic massacre, or genocide (Srebrenica, for example), via sniper fire (Sarajevo, etc.), or taken hostage, while millions more were displaced from their homes. With all of these atrocities being televised, it may come as a shock to realize that it took approximately 3 years for outside forces to intervene on behalf of the victims. It has taken many more years for these war criminals to be brought to justice.
So, why is this important now? Because once again, we have a conflict playing out on our televisions (now on our computer screens as well) and we continue to do nothing. I am, of course, talking about the conflict in Syria. With bombings, allegations of genocide and other war crimes being thrown around on a daily basis, it's a wonder as to why we have not done more to bring an end to the violence. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying that the Syrians need us (we are not American liberators to be greeted with flowers, candy and a ticker tape parade), but that the world, in a collective action should do more to investigate these allegations and stop any war crimes, making sure that they bring those who may be responsible to justice. It is not enough for the world to be watching, the world must some how learn to act, in order to save lives. After all, if we were in a similar situation, wouldn't we want someone to do the same?
